Monday, May 01, 2006

9/11 conspiracy people are still at it

The 9/11 conspiracy people are still at it. This post from RANDKILLER999 05.01.06 - 2:19 am :"wtc building 7 proves 911 was an inside job ---------------- the most historical opportunity of all time, the revelation of the 911hoax, once people figure out that this was all done by the cheney cabal it will stand forever as a memory that will end govt tyranny and war forever--- RISE!!"

At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed and contrary to the claims of 9/11 conspiracy people, it did not collapse into its footprint like a controlled explosion. (See the diagram) Instead, as the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. (See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC 6). read more at link

Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of WTC 7 but it is the south side of the building that was damaged by the debris from WTC 1 and it is the west side of the building where the smoke was pouring out of. (see figures 5-16 and 5-17)

Jones is ridiculous. Now the story is that the buildings fell because "thermite" melted the steel floor by floor? If there was a "thermite reaction" taking place on every floor the melting would take at least a little time and the process would be creating a huge amount of smoke.

What we see is a collapse floor by floor, we don't see an enormous amount of smoke (from hundreds of theoretical thermite reactions) suddenly pouring out of the whole building. Think about it, Jones is claiming that as some point thermite reactions took place. If that were so, then where is all the increase in smoke? There would have been an enormous amount of smoke suddenly released well before the collapse as the "thermite" burns through the steel. Remember that it has to start as least some time before the crashing down of the floors. Instead we see the building burning and there is no sudden pouring out of extra smoke preceding the collapse.

This thermite theory Jones concocted blurs the idea of explosives and an incendiary reaction. The thermite theory is really as nutty as the "no planes" theory.

The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center.

Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.

Griffin erroneously writes "The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." The fact is, before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing, columns bending, floors sagging, was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. We can see in the photos that the exterior columns were bowing in the minutes before the collapse, in the case of the South Tower, the bending was evident as early as 18 minutes after the plane's impact.

Griffin writes, "In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse." But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Bowing Debunks Explosives

Anonymous, I know you must feel embarrassed being proven wrong but you can't deny what is in the photos and what was witnessed too. People had been reporting that the building was failing.

Blame these "9/11 truth" websites for your embarrassment, they set you up by withholding these facts from you. I have tried to get them to deal with the evidence but they ban me and refuse to link to the photos.

Come on man, the very thing Griffin says is evidence of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos had happened! We need to deal with the damn policies. I really am getting sick of this crap. You might also be manipulated by people deflecting away from the actual motives for the 9/11 attacks? Is that your agenda too?

9 comments:

And again, I agree with you that Zionists are at the basis of the whole thing, but you are wrong about the Towers. There are JUST as many-if not more, conflicting sites and evidence...including clips of reporters mentioning explosions and firefighters talking about the explosions and the report-audio-of one fire company stating that the fires were under control and the buildings were stable: Co # 15. And most of these video's show every single angle of building 7 including an aerial shot of the wreckage. All of the wreckage. There is also a list of 159 reasons to discout the "TRUTH" about 9/11. So, hold on to that truth of the Zionists, but expand your mind regarding the complicity of our very own Government in the tragedy that was-and is-9/11.

The above site actually begins at Chapter one, but for some reason, it jumped to the last chapter. VERY, VERY enlightening!! So, as I stated before, you are half right. Do not be so blind to your own agenda that you cannot see the Forest for the Trees!!

Concerned American More info: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

quote: "Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."

I got to this page from a google video clip and in the clip this guy says he keeps being thrown off forums because he has conclusive proof that all them conspiracy theorists are wrong and will show us the proof.

I’m still waiting and will link to this page and other pages because he says it has things here that us conspiracy freaks don’t want other people to know about.

Going forwards I think GW-Bush will be bumped off as the 9/11 truth movement gets closer to truth and people can say it’s a conspiracy when myself and others say his death was connected to the false flag events played out on 9/11

We're still at it because there's one basic problem... and I've finally reduced it to mathematics where the data, not emotions or speculation can solve the problem beyond reasonable doubt. Consider the following statistics problem...

Suppose that a 47-story building identically engineered to WTC 7 collapses in a manner where every outer edge descends at a perfect 90 degree angle (perpendicular) & at free fall speed. Given this data, what is the probability that this geometrically perfect collapse can occur naturally (without explosives).

It's that simple... the building collapsed at free fall speed and almost perfectly perpendicular to the ground... which very clearly illustrates that all support beams were simultaneously compromised.

Now answer the question... can the simultaneous failure of all support beams within a building identical to WTC 7 occur without controlled timing of shaped charges?

If indeed thermite or a similar incendiary was used, I don't think it would have to bave been used on every floor. If it had been used on, say, just the core columns and transfer trusses on Floor 5, that probably would have been sufficient to bring the building down.

I agree that Griffin made a lot of errors in describing the WTC collapses, and that too many people have copied his errors.

You wrote: "Gee whiz, if it was our government that did 9/11 then we don't have to think about the policies of supporting Israel and other oppressive regimes in the Middle East. Is that your freakin' game?"

Wrong. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement believe that the point of U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 attacks was to provide an excuse for those very policies. So, the 9/11 Truth movement does encourage people to question those policies, just not in the exact same way that you do.

If one whole side of building 7 had taken damage to its foundation, the fact that it collapsed into bits rather than falling over is even more impossible.

I've watched all of Steven Jones' presentation and I don't remember him saying anything about thermite on every single floor, only being used to cut the core columns. And in fact there was an INCREDIBLY HUGE plume of smoke coming out of both towers. Where you write that the reaction would take a little, time, I've seen videos of thermAte melting through an entire car in mere seconds, and there were in fact plumes of smoke bursting out of the building just ahead of the collapse on the way down.

One of the most ridiculous arguments that I am so sick of hearing is that it must not have been a controlled demolition because it didn't look anything like the conventional controlled demolitions that we've all seen. OBVIOUSLY, if you were trying to fool the whole WORLD, YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THAT!! These towers were EXploded, not IMploded, and from the TOP down.

Not many people who point to the NIST, the 9/11 Commission and FEMA reports as their evidence have actually taken the time to examine them. I've been an RP-subscriber for quite some time and have always thought you to be a very intelligent person, but I've never come across these pages before. I think you are being extremely close-minded in your arguments and have not allowed yourself to consider all of the evidence available.

Don't get caught up in the sensationalism of ridiculous people like Alex Jones.